Speaking of trainwrecks in progress...the whole tl:dr thing, no doubt, chock full o' erm erraticness, but I was particularly drawn by the touching advice of dear Satsuma in these troubled times.
(oh, follow the link from there)
...I’m from the tough love school for women. It is not popular to say that we are 100% in charge of our own destiny, because this makes women who have fallen through the cracks feel bad. Feeling bad won’t get you anywhere in life.
Women on this blog get mad at success or any woman who thinks this is exciting and challenging. What I have to say, is that my life is a testiment that if you APPLY the wisdom of radical lesbian feminism, and you don’t fall into the trap of ever living with men as an adult, and you throw your mind as far as it will go, you’ll actually have a much better life than all the women who think they need men to prosper. I’m saying you will be healthier and wealthier if you DON’T marry men, live with them or have children.
I’m saying brilliance and cleverness and excitement and accomplishment are what await a true radical feminist.
What pains me here is that women don’t believe this. I think there are a lot of women in the world who are truly afraid of being different. They struggle to fit in everywhere, instead of choosing to live by an inner guidance system or even an inner true light.
Women think other women should fail and suffer. I’m not from that school of thought. I know that education and study advance you, and I know you need no handouts, welfare bureaus or social service agencies to do this. When you leave behind the production machine of patriarchy — which is not factory work, but childbearing, you really are free from personally contaminating patriarchy.
It’s what I find so frustrating here at times, this head in the sand, I don’t give a damn attitude. It’s this worship of poverty and downward mobility, or the belief that a radical lesbian life will not cause you to be better off in the end.
There is nothing worse than reading about women who can’t afford dentists here. Somehow that gets to me the most. I meet women everyday who are already setting themselves up for this. If they have the good fortune of working with me, they’ll do a lot better...
Every time a woman marries a man and has children and quits work in the state of California, puts her at a greater risk than buying a financial stock right now. The risk is that she is throwing about 10 years away from retirement planning, and stands to get divorced at a 50-60% rate. That means she will probably be the sole support of children and her standard of living will drop immediately. This happens every day of the year...
...I found poverty actually dull, and thought that I could do a whole lot better than a lot of straight women out there and have a better life. I think heterosexual women often feel they are superior to lesbians, and think our ideas are utopian.
But I believed in the male free life, and I believed that lesbian feminism led to incredible personal, political and spiritual insights.
It’s what causes me to greatly admire ambitious women. It’s what makes me love gritty women like Sarah Palin, when feminists out there think she is the devil....
...I love smart ambitious women. And there is nothing smarter and more ambitious than women who win high office in politics, and nothing more threatening to women who haven’t risen this far. The irony is the old guard feminists get mad at the Sarah Palins, just because they have personal beliefs that don’t tow a party line. I don’t tow a party line that says be poor, don’t achieve, don’t make a lot of money, don’t have the best in life… that doesn’t go over well. But feminism frees all women, and it comes out looking rather odd. Sarah Palin is a feminist in my book, and she is a fundamentalist christian. How shocking! Maybe a lot of women here simply don’t know how caring and loving fundamentalist christians actually are. Perhaps they haven’t met fundamentalist christians who are lesbian accepting.
You can’t be both right? Well in my opinion, how can you be a free woman if you are living with men and having sex with them. Yuck!! But I am sure feminists here who do this would still think of themselves as feminists, right?
Men don’t trash Palin the way so many women feminists do.
So this contradictory belief may seem mysterious; a love of both Palin and Clinton. Something about their personal struggles I deeply identify with. Something about seeing a woman on stage accepting a VP nomination while her husband holds the baby is so amazing to me...
...I am not a leftist or even a rightist, I am a woman who really goes for it, and never contaminate themselves with men kind of feminist. I’m not the hippie sex drugs and rock and roll type person. I hated all that nonsense, just wasn’t me. Perhaps a lot of that leftie stuff just annoyed me and still does. Weirdly enough, give me a proper fundamentalist christian any day over a vulgar swearing sexualized lesbian.
-clap clap-
Sorry to get carried away with the C&P--tl:dr, that's still only like a third of her latest saga, never mind the surrounding shitstorm--but I'm sort of riveted. If it's performance art, it's frigging AWESOME. It's like the bastard child of Tony Robbins, Sheila Jeffreys, and Dawn Eden.
oh, and almost forgot this bit:
No I don’t want failure and poverty, and no I am not swayed by everyone else going nuts over a stock market that is quite predictable. The fortunes are made quickly after events like this, while everyone else is still in panic.
ETA: also, too, also, I need to say this, once and for all:
Toe the line. Toe the line. Not -tow-. TOE. There's a line in the sand. You're not supposed to step over it; you're supposed to -toe-. You can't -tow- the line, unless you mean you're physically moving the drawn line someplace else altogether.
86 comments:
*blinks*
*stares*
what?
lesbian feminist conservatism?
WHUT.
I think you've found the elusive PUMA. Congratulations! I don't know much about mammalian nomenclature conventions, but maybe you could name it after yourself or something.
*blink blink*
I...wow. I think the cognitive dissonance just made my brain shut down. Or maybe it's just the cold talking.
And this:
Weirdly enough, give me a proper fundamentalist christian any day over a vulgar swearing sexualized lesbian.
I'm so glad we're establishing once again that the good little lesbians are the ones that simply refuse to have any contact whatsoever with men, not the ones that [clutches pearls] are attracted to women and whatnots. One wouldn't want to be considered vulgar, after all.
*blink blink*
Also, thanks so much for pointing out the toe/tow the line distinction. That one drives me up the wall.
Because, gosh, Sarah Palin so leads a man-free life, and so wants other women to be able to, right?
Men don’t trash Palin the way so many women feminists do.
Erm, no, that's true: (some) men trash Sarah Palin by creating pornographic art with Palin's "Drill, Baby, drill!" comment as the slogan; by creating sites called "V-Ps I'd Like to Fuck" or even by talking about raping her.
I don't recall many feminists talking about Palin in those terms: they tend to talk about Palin wanting to screw women's rights instead!
sadly, there are less...improbable...people out there, some I used to respect, who also are pretty damn close to PUMA territory if they aren't actually there.
this one's a far more fantastical creature than a puma, though...
I especially love her "sigh, I found poverty quite dull, actually" statement.
What the?
Is she actually writing from a country club? Because that's what I see in my mind when I read her saying that.
Oddly enough, I always end up envisioning her as Foghorn Leghorn.
Okay...
So she's neo-liberal, right-wing, 'sensible'type of new age woman (no "hippy-dippy shit for her!), aaand a rugged 'up-by-her-boots' self-made individualist, who as lankydancer and others point out happens to view lesbianism as a rejection of men on socio-economic grounds no less - rather than a love of women. (Because lesbianism is all about where you are situated in relation to 'teh men'.)
...Fine...(Well not really, but it's her life.)
But to echo Daisy, how does an identification with Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton (straight and decidedly married to MEN) fit in with her 'reject men now and you'll be richer in the purse for it" mantra?
What am I missing here?
"...I love smart ambitious women. And there is nothing smarter and more ambitious than women who win high office in politics, and nothing more threatening to women who haven’t risen this far."
And again. Her role models are Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton? I personally can't stand some of Hillary's of politics but as a renowned 'policy wonk' and a highly educated, articulate woman there are few people who would (or could) accuse her of being 'stupid' in good, non-sexist conscience. And with that said, she sure wasn't running as Hillary Rodham.
With Sarah, it's a case of '1 out of 2'. (Because she is ambitious.)
Also gets on my nerve that if you don't endeavour to be a Hillary or a Sarah int this world then obviously you're just cowering in the corner wasting space. Ugh.
Some people inspire me to violence. I think I would go into a spitting rage if someone said those words to me, for the pure ... well, dammit if it doesn't sound insane.
How has this person missed that Palin is where she is because she suckled from the cock of the patriarchy?!!
(If you're interested in my tone and inflection with that statement, think, crescendo)
*vague rage preventing coherent response*
What am I missing here?
Ehm, nothing, really, except for the context of some of this character's other greatest hits, this, for one classic example.
but really your guess is as good as any of ours. people've been arguing good naturedly for months as to whether we think she's "real," a troll, a sock, or some combination thereof. anyway, she is Special.
the other sort of darkly amusing thing being that she seems to have sent some other, nearly equally um improbably people into a tizzy, once again (follow the links in the OP). one of your basic "I got no dog here, really, but pass the popcorn" moments.
and yeah, I don't especially love Hillary either; she's just this politician, you know? that said, there's no question that at least she's smart and competent. and, you know, not a fundamentalist; which, yeah, -is- kind of more of a deal breaker for me as a lesbian and as a feminist than "vulgarian," 'fraid so. especially wrt the prospect of such a person RUNNING THE COUNTRY, and all.
Satsuma has a rather erm unorthodox position when it comes to sexual assault, too, I believe (i.e. in the event that even a clear eyed gazing abstinent man-eschewing lesbian ended up needing an abortion); I'm not sure, but I seem to remember her take on "prevention" or "safety" boiled down to something roughly akin to Cartman's warrior cry:
"AAAAANNNNND I WILL KICK THEM IN THE -NUTS!-"
Incidentally, based on her definition of clear eyed lesbian gaze (in so far as it basically boils down to very accurate and precise intuition) I think it applies to my boyfriend quite well...
only if he's two dimensional and painted by Romaine Brooks.
Also gets on my nerve that if you don't endeavour to be a Hillary or a Sarah int this world then obviously you're just cowering in the corner wasting space. Ugh.
Usually I only see that in the subtext. I don't think I've ever actually seen someone state it that blatantly.
I wrote about that a while back when I was ranting about "privilege feminism". Wow, that was just over a year ago. Whoa.
oh lol
[Heart]
Re Satsuma: I think Satsuma is legit. I’ve known and know several, well, a lot, of women quite a lot like Satsuma who have been independent and lived apart from men all of their lives and who
struggle to understand the decisions of women who have lived differently. Satsuma (and other women like her that I know) care about all women not in the touchy-feely mooshy sense, but in the sense that women are their tribe. You see this in Satsuma’s admiration of and support for both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin (which has been
hard for many women here to understand, in light of other things she’s written, but I understand it.) I think Satsuma is hugely frustrated by what she sees so far as women goes and feels as though life doesn’t have to be so difficult and hard for many women as it is. She really does want to help but can’t figure out how to other than talking about
what has worked for her. She has a deep understanding of Second Wave/lesbian feminism, of its history and leaders. I suppose it’s possible
she could have studied really hard so as to masquerade as someone who knows all that stuff, but, I don’t think so, because the things she
talks about are not things you can get from studying. What she says is what grows out of many years of thinking about this movement we are all part of. I’ve encountered many fakers and they never get it right and it is never integrated into their analysis of current events the
way it is with Satsuma.
...
I think Satsuma has a lot of good things to say and have found her to be a kind and warm person privately, especially, so the way she comes
across here and the things she says and the responses are frustrating and hard for me. I don’t think it has to be this hard. I think the
way through is for Satsuma to look towards struggling women with hope, compassion and understanding (as opposed to counseling them (her real life job) and “fixing” them). But that’s her call, always. I think there is always the temptation to get digs in at women when we don’t
understand what they’re doing and think it’s wrong. That never helps. All it does is drive women away. Do it often enough, nobody will be around to get the digs in at.
Again, sorry to talk about you in the third person, Satsuma.
I’d like for this to be the end of the discussion about Satsuma.
Sigh.
***
previously on that same thread:
Note to people who are pro porn/pro-prostitution and who consistently attack anti-porn/anti-prostitution feminists and who have attempted to
comment to this thread: I am not interested in what you have to say about my moderation policies. Your comments will be severely, as always, moderated OUT and directly into spam. This blog is a pro- woman, anti-misogyny, anti-subordination blog and it will continue to be so.
Stay gold, Blanche...you excellent l'il judge of character, you.
and then, off the original comment Ren's marveling at:
It seems to me that everywhere I look, radfems want to fix the other woman somehow, like they have somehow achieved perfection or arrived and are themselves beyond criticism. Go anywhere, you will see otherwise good and fine radfems/lesbian feminists online slagging the other woman off because she is too this, too that, wrong about this, wrong about that, she is too mean, too nice-y nice-y and therefore enslaved to gender stereotypes, or she is too nasty, look, she wants to be a man, or she is too measured and calm or fair and therefore, “phony”, look, she tolerates that woman, look she lets that woman comment, look, she is that woman’s friend, look, she does this, that and the other. The hell. It sucks, it’s mean-spirited, it’s messed up, the way women tend to bond over their common judgments or dislike or resentments of other women. I find this, in the end, to be more destructive than a radical/lesbian feminist coming into a thread here and offering us a piece of her mind she can’t afford to lose, which is what Satsuma frequently does. At least here women can respond and tell her off. Behind the scenes where women are getting slagged off, or on blogs where comments are not allowed but the blogger continually is ranting and raving about other women (!), or in blogs of radfem diva types where the only commenters are sycophants, or in the little digs all over the place that can’t be addressed straight on, it’s just so many foul emissions, so much toxic, noxious anti-woman pollution filling the air, making it impossible to breathe and dangerous to breathe...
back over at Ren's,
Outis said...
"It seems to me that everywhere I look, radfems want to fix the other woman somehow, like they have somehow achieved perfection or arrived and are themselves beyond criticism."
Doth her house have no mirrors?
This is unbelievable.
...
and then, the punchline:
Anonymous said..
.
She's talking about radfems wanting to fix radfems. Has nothing to do with ya'll.
Well, that's good to know finally. Perhaps then she might want to change the name of her joint from the more inclusive sounding "Womens' Space"
to
"Small Paranoid Clique of Women Who Believe We're The Vanguard of Some Nebulous Revolution But Really Consists Of A Particularly Esoteric Version of a Fringe Section Of A Fringe Movement, At Least All The Ones Who Haven't Yet Crossed Heart Personally, Don't Mind Us, We Can't Find Our Collective Ass With Both Hands And A Flashlight, Let Alone Set The World On Fire. Move Along, Nothing To See Here Except An Amusing Trainwreck, Ever...'s Space." Truthiness in advertising, and all.
There is nothing worse than reading about women who can’t afford dentists
I think that about sums it up. Nothing worse in the whole world than not being able to afford a dentist.
well, no: -reading- about it is worse.
Reading and knowing that if only they'd listened to you and not gotten married and had kids or made other bad decisions, they could go to the dentist every DAY if they wanted, that is.
I'm telling you: Foghorn Leghorn.
"What's the, Ah say, what's the idea, sister? Now, you listen to me. That there is a 401K. That -there- is a -man.- You don't -want- a -man.- You want the -401K.- Now here's how you get one--pay attention sister..."
Hey Belldame222 - I followed the link... and -
I'm a little conflicted about the Satsuma posts because I have straight, cissexual privilege, so it would be all too easy for me to retreat behind that privilege and yuk it up and laugh (not that I'm criticising anyone else for laughing.) I've been reading your blog for a while now, but I'm very new to actually posting here.
Regarding Satsuma... There's a part of me that shrugs and thinks: well there's the male gaze, and the 'black' worldview, and mestiza consciousness, and so forth. So why not lesbian eyesight?
Then again...
I don't demand that she's on the level a Fredrick Douglass, a Franz Fanon or Wa'Thiongo Ngugi, an Adrienne Rich, a bell hooks, an Andrea Smith or a Gloria Anzaldua. But the biggest problem that I have with with where Satsuma is coming from is that its conceptually weak and flimsy.
Despite all of the references to 'eyesight' there's little insight in what she's saying. I mean, 30 years hunting around for a particular *expression* in books and art that acts as an identifier? That's the basis for an entire outlook on life?
I'm not into the political currency of holy wombs or magical vaginas, (or in this case magical eyesight) which are too often used as a political weapon against to beat down transgender people and keep them in their 'place'. Sure, wombs and vaginas and eyesight are important but not when someone tries to dehumanise them and use them as the basis of a cult or a religion. Speaking of which...
Religious fundamentalism is a deal breaker for me too, but it's not the same. For one thing - proximity matters.
No matter what I say, I don't live in America with the direct threat of McCain getting elected and then keeling over... So if Palin as a foaming-at-the-mouth Christian fundamentalist (who probably thinks that gays and lesbians aren't part of 'God's plan' and can by implication be swept aside like lint) frightens you more than McCain?
You're the one who knows it and lives it. And I won't presume to argue against *that* again.
ehm...I think kactus' take on it pretty well sums it up for me, and for most people.
there is also the whole business wherein Satsuma finds the business of -shudder- Teh Sex rather -icky- and -vulgar-, and, well, a whole bunch of shit.
really, go ahead and laugh. I mean, I think it's okay.
that said, yeah, you're right: there are reasons why fundamentalism feels scarier to me than some other possibilities. although ultimately I think it would be scary for pretty much everyone. I mean, I -read- the Handmaid's Tale. granted Palin's more Joel Osteen than Aunt Lydia in a lot of ways, but the hardline on reproductive rights I'd think would scare the crap out of most women who aren't in a position to/just don't agree with her.
btw, just to clarify: you (westerly) are two people writing under the same login, right?
...oh right, and that part of it, too, I forgot. Remind me: where are you?
and yeah, she's as transphobic as the rest of them, unsurprisingly.
to clarify: the anti-sex thing specifically being: she can't understand all these young lesbians who think lesbianism is all about -sex-, and won't stop talking about it; she blames the influx of trans women into wimmins' circles, last I checked. that and the suppression of free trade or something, no I'm kidding about that bit but sadly not the rest.
anyway, welcome, finally.
also, I think the "male gaze" business has been overused and taken out of its original context, which -as I understand it- (I could be wrong) was originally talking about POV in -film.- part of pomo theory and all. somehow it got swept up and woven back into this kind of simplistic radical/cultural feminism that's really essentialist at its heart but still makes use of more sophisticated sounding jargon; really though ime it often boils down to:
"Men look. Women are looked at. This is a Bad Thing. It cannot be subverted or have any other meaning than the one The One True Frame has determined, and women -just can't look-, because it -doesn't happen- (but if it did, especially turned on other women, it would be Wrong)"
...and gets bottled up around there.
whereas "consciousness" and "worldview" are already a bit broader, inherently. I think when you get to the point where you're really that fixated on eyeballs, you've...it's lost the plot.
Hey Belledame - no, no, no! (Though it might seem that way!)
All coming from one person. I'm the same Westerly who was worried about McCain getting too much sympathy etc. and then tried to clarify in (hopefully) more civil tones where I was coming from. Same person who has posted twice (?)in this thread.
My partner and I have different accounts and e-mails. I sometimes use his account and e-mail when I log into sites. I referred to this in a post because I a.) thought that I had used the 'google blogger option' and logged in with his under his google account, and b.) because you referred to me as 'dude'. (And I was thinking about ISPs tracing back to accounts and all of that - not that I have any real idea how it actually works...)
But no - I'm just the one person. (For the record I'm a straight, black (but not african-american) female immigrant - who lives in New Zealand! Just so that you know a little about me, where I'm geographically situated, and that I come in peace. I figure you probably have problems with trolls and so forth?)
And something else that I've thought of because it might be confusing. I remember when I used to be on another board they were surprised when I specified that I was a 'she' because for the longest while they thought I was gay and male.
I was kind of confused and when I asked them 'why', one of the posters pointed out to me that it was because I always used the term 'partner' and so they'd assumed that I was a gay guy (but not a lesbian interestingly enough...)
So I explained that in NZ the term 'partner' can refer to gays and lesbians in a relationship, AND to unmarried straight couples in a de facto arrangement. The term 'partner' doesn't reveal gender or sexual orientation over here. (I'm not sure how it works in the States.)
Or maybe they thought I was a guy because I can be aggressive, or because of long-winded posts, but were just too polite to say so...
But enough of me. Back to the point of your thread. I agree with you about the 'male gaze'being taken out of its theoretical context - and it's NOT a context that I am conversant with! (But I hear you on the mono-directional, static oppression it implies when it's dumbed down.) But your OP has been an eye-opener.
Satsuma and Heart have their own type of feminism going - really - it's good to know about different types of feminisms. (It's been so long since I looked at radical feminism to be honest.) But just as I don't see much of a place for myself in so-called 'mainstream' feminism? I don't really can't see place for me in that brand of feminism either.
Dw3t-Hthr said:
Usually I only see that in the subtext. I don't think I've ever actually seen someone state it that blatantly.
This is why I'm now starting to wonder if she isn't a troll or a satirist or something, because ... well, just the other day I was talking to someone about why the "political lesbianism" and a lot of the other "radfem" dogma bothers me to the point that I actually amlost physically cannot read any of it without the context of someone like BD or Ren or, you know, someone: because the whole thing strikes me as the same old partiarchal bullshit the fundies spew, wrapped up in a sheep's skin of insidiousness and "feminism" (yeah, sorry, scare quotes, but I can't think of a better way to word it right now, augh), smothered with a sause of Nice Straight Women trying to colonise my sexuality, and by extension my body, my mind, my soul.
So my sexuality gets reframed to be All About The Menz (the absense thereof, sure, but still All About Them), any actual sexual desire on the part of women (lesbian or not--they're eaual-opportunity in this!) gets dismissed as 'male-identified" because women don't actually enjoy sex, silly, and if they do, they're sluts and just have penis envy or ... something.
Anyway, like I said, that was just the other day, an here's Satsuma, pretty much stating the parallel/association/whatever outright: she likes the fundie better because at least the fundies don't swear, don't act vulgar, don't enjoy sex (at least, the women don't).
Then again, does it really make a difference wether or not Satsuma, specifically, is satire? Evenev if she is, there's still a lot more of them who aren't, and maybe I'm focussing on this possibility because I don't have the energy to rant about all the things wrong with the shit she spews--the classism, the transphobia, the fact that if she wants to live her life away from all men and have no children (neither do I!), that's between her and her sushi, but if all women did that, like she's advocating, well, womankind is going to go extinct right alongside mankind, you know?
... Or, wait, is Satsuma the one who claims women can get pregnant on their own, Come The Revolution? (Because that's the other thing, this "All will be well Come The Revolution" shit that ignores that The Revolution is not yet Come, and if they have suggestions as to what to do, concretely, to get us even a baby step closer to The Revolution, I'll be happy to help, but until they do, I'll be trying to at least make life a little bit more bearable for the people who live in the here and now instead of just telling them to wait for The Revolution, when all will be kittens and rainbows and whatnot. Shit, isn't that kinda thing whence "The personal is political" originated, the fact that actually, no, women aren't going to be waiting around until After The (Socialist) Revolution to work towards getting their rights and equality and whatnot?)
Okay, I'm gonna stop rambling now and go calm myself with some pictures of pretty boys touching each other in inappropriate ways. (How vulgar!)
This is just really fucking hilarious. Until I realize how sad it is.
Re: the "male gaze".
I see it as, chiefly, a way of blaming heterosexual men for the fact that they have sexual preferences - i.e. it has little to do with what they look at and lots to do with what they are looking for. The assertion that women wear make-up and revealing clothing (for example) in response to the male gaze actually means "in response to male sexual preferences". But the truth is, surely, that the only "power" heterosexual male sexual preferences have resides in the willingness of women to behave in accordance with them. But this phrase, "male gaze" (one imagines the concentric rings of power emanating from the patriarch's eyes!) suggests that male het preferences have some power of their own which women are helpless to resist.
If women want to dress and behave according to men's perceived sexual preferences, then that seems as blameless to me as their not so dressing and behaving. But a woman "excusing" her decision (or that of other women) to put on make-up and wear sexually enticing clothing on the "male gaze" is just an attempt to displace an already misplaced sense of guilt.
Maybe she's a chupa-thingy. Eats goats.
/Red vs. Blue
(Sorry, sorry... the puma thing set me off...)
chupacabras!
hey, Westerly: nah, none of that, I hadn't really looked. at most I click on someone's profile, if they have a clickable one. Thanks for the clarification.
No worries about derailing or anything. There's also an introductions thread in the sidebar (top of "favorites,") if you want to say something there.
--hey, rosmar!! yeah, it's funny-pathetic, or vice-versa.
melle: yeah to pretty much all of that. she does kind of make the subtext texty, insofar as it wasn't already with a lot of the other ones. and no, I agree: even if she's a troll, it sort of doesn't much matter (except in a schadenfreudische sense of reaffirmation of -just how frigging bad at judging these things Heart is-). I mean, besides everything else, putting that much time and energy into a persona...y'know, I think Andy Kaufman was funny and all, but he wasn't probably exactly the -healthiest- person in the whole world either.
some have also speculated it might even be Heart herself expressing her capitalist side; I just don't think there're enough hours in the day, and also I don't credit her with that much imagination, frankly. besides, her socks are usually much simpler things. "lurker support me in email" and all that.
none of which really answers the "realness" question, mind you, even if in the main respects Satsuma is what she says she is (demographic, job, beliefs, etc. etc.): she's kind of her own Mary Sue, there.
oh, to answer your question: no, she's not the human partheogenesis one, that's the ever-charming luckynkl, who also believes that scientists agree that the events in the Bible are factually true, that trans women not only are men but belong in a "straitjacket" and shouldn't be allowed in womens' bathrooms on account of they're like Norman Bates (I told you she was charming), and, o, just a -bunch- of things, really.
--o yeah, that there's no such thing as overpopulation because we can all fit into one small county in Michigan (NOW we know why Michfest is so important! it's LITERALLY the promised land!) I thought about devoting an entire post to her scientific thinky thoughts at one point, but it's a question of how much effort I'm gonna go to strictly for the cheap laughs. still, you don't see specimens like her every day, it's true.
and yeah, she's real enough, as in she exists: there are pictures and everything.
so, yeah, no more or less likely a persona than Satsuma really, in her way.
but Satsuma would never be a fan of the human partheogenesis thing; she things having babies is icky and gross and demeaning, and isn't exactly a fan of children, or of raising them (she herself sprung fully hatched from one of Romaine Brooks' painted forehead, I believe), even if the "doing away with men" bit might appeal to her.
after all, the market continues regardless, yes? even -without any actual people-.
oh, speaking of PUMA's, though--check out this LindaA1 character. I'm honestly not sure if the idea that she actually -means- all this shit or that she just might er um be an actual cleverclogs stealth Republican trying to get votes for McCain (and that clearly at least one person's already fallen for it)makes me roll my eyes harder.
http://www.womensspace.org/phpBB2/had-enough-of-politics-as-usual/
I cannot imagine living in a society where there is not even an island of principled people. The Obama campaign, the Democratic Party Leadership, the mainstream media - and now feminist leadership have all thrown fairness and principle out the window. Is that the society I want to live in? No.
Rewarding unprincipled people by joining them and then hoping to change them from within is a fool’s errand. Why should corrupt people change once they have all the power when they had the audacity to abuse you when they were merely seeking power?
Obama and Company will be so emboldened by winning the presidency that nothing will be sacred. As you well know, corruption breeds corruption.
Yes, I prefer McCain’s brain-dead Republican crowd to Obama’s shamefully corrupt misogynistic crowd. Why? Because it is a temporary situation. Fours years of deadlock with a divided government. If Obama wins this, he and the people he brings with him will be entrenched in power for a decade or more.
Try visualizing this future with what Barack Obama brings to our living rooms: Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, a host of radical “black liberationist” reverends, a bunch of other unsavory, mysterious characters, a slew of power hungry misogynistic despots like Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and Donna Brazile and a jubilant press corps who are no more than a hoard of partisan hyenas. And now you can add discredited feminist leaders to the list who seem to have adopted Obama’s “win at all costs - principles be damned” methods.
I’m not going to close my eyes to the screaming truths of what’s happening in this country. I’m a pragmatist first, a no nonsense person. And I’m not afraid of the hard decisions.
I know when it’s time to pull the plug, drown the rats and start over with a clean slate. THAT TIME IS NOW with the Democratic Party. THE WAY is to keep them out of power and rid ourselves of them while they are weak and powerless under a Republican President.
...Hillary Clinton knew the strategy and had the support system in place to make [change] happen. Obama doesn’t have a clue and sees massive change as the solution to our problems. How he thinks this can work when half the country is vehemently in opposition to him escapes me. He believes he can force the change on the nonbelievers and that it will eventually be accepted. That is a simplistic misread of the country and perpetuates the disgruntled environment we live in.
Yes, we all want change - but we all want change our way. It will take a decade or more of chipping away at the massive convoluted mess we call government to make change happen in acceptable ways.
McCain in a deadlocked one term is the fastest way to get to a Hillary Clinton presidency. And she is the only politician I see who knows how to really effect change in this polarized society.
...Branjor
Welcome, Linda A1, I really appreciate the clarity with which you are able to explain the process of change and what we need to do now in this country. I have been living in mortal terror of admitting to anyone that I will probably vote for McCain/Palin for the reasons you gave, which will be the first time I ever cast a ballot for a republican in my life, but no more. If I do, I will also vote all democratic down ticket.
LindaA1
Thanks, Branjor. Believe me I have butterflies about voting Republican myself - I’ve never done it and never thought I would.
Luckily, we can be certain of a strong Democratic majority in the House and Senate - some predict as much as 60/40 in the Senate. That keeps Roe off the table since the Senate has to approve a McCain appointment. A Democratically controlled Congress also guarantees deadlock. McCain will be a one-term President which makes him basically a lame duck from the start.
A loss by Obama in an unlosable election year will infuriate the centrists of the Democratic Party and it’s likely there will be a “off with their heads” moment for the Obama, Dean, Reid, Pelosi, Brazile and Company. Hillary Clinton would become the unofficial head of the Party.
National healthcare for everybody would be the great loss under McCain - except there’s nothing to keep Hillary Clinton from structuring a universal health care system during the four year term of McCain with the blessing of the Democratic Congress. It would take four years to structure it anyway - even under an Obama administration. PRESIDENT Clinton could implement her national healthcare system on the first day of her presidency in 2012. No time lost.
Certainly there is damage McCain can do as a conservative but it’s limited. And it pales by comparison to the damage an Obama presidency will bring with it - in his inept governance (of lack thereof) and the psychological impact of corrupt misogynist politics paying off.
Given that I live in a liberal environment, I often get accused of being a conservative and a traitor to the Democratic Party and feminism for my choice to vote McCain-Palin. I find this an amusing short-sighted view since Hillary supporters voting for Obama are the ones compromising themselves to a candidate who abuses them, uses them and forces them to betray their principles.
I see my choice as the more courageous move - the decision to say no to compromised principles, the decision to flat-out revolt against corruption and endure whatever sacrifice must be made temporarily for the greater good in the long run.
I think this is my favorite bit:
there’s nothing to keep Hillary Clinton from structuring a universal health care system during the four year term of McCain with the blessing of the Democratic Congress. It would take four years to structure it anyway - even under an Obama administration. PRESIDENT Clinton could implement her national healthcare system on the first day of her presidency in 2012. No time lost.
Of course! It's all falling into place! That place being somewhere in the farther reaches of the Crab Nebula, but never mind: SOMEWHERE, in SOME universe, this is a -smashing- idea. I'm totally sure all the variables would work exactly like that, too, including this person's keen assessments about the relative -radicalism- of Obama vs. Hillary, not to mention the ability or lack thereof of each of them to get past polarization. genius.
I might've bought the pragmatic centrist shite a bit more, it does sound convincing, if she hadn't started right off with Ayers and ffs Rezko. does anyone except the Republican base give a flying rat's ass about -Resko?-
oh, and the wide-eyed wondering about why voting for a third party will help (i.e. it's better to vote for McCain!)
if it's a plant, it's a smart one. came to the right place, for sure, even if most people still aren't buying it; some clearly are, and others are -so- close...
then again, that's a lot of work for, like, two and a half votes.
then again again: I'd probably be that desperate, too, at this point, and anyway the Margins is relatively well known, maybe they figure the lurkers are reading this shit...
meh. or maybe someone really is that much of a Hillary Clinton devotee that she's concocted this...-interesting- scenario; but, suddenly I just ran out of interest never mind.
oh, oh, and of course: the argument for gradualism, but at the same time the relatively modest changes Obama is proposing to the health care system and might even actually have a bit more chance to implement with a filibuster-proof or nearly so Congress is no good, especially for the people who could use a bit of help and might actually be affected -right now-; let's wait for years and then, UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE FOR EVERYONE W00T.
from all the money which will have miraculously appeared in the interim, no doubt, whichever administration is in charge for the next four years.
uh huh.
...jesus, I actually agree with Aletha.
The Democratic Party in recent times has always thought it has the winning strategy, namely triangulation, playing it safe down the middle, of which Bill Clinton was the master. You may call this realistic, but it is a losing strategy. Clinton only won because Ross Perot made the most of his grudge against Republicans. Democrats took Congress last time because Republicans have dug themselves into such a deep hole, empty promises of ending the war on Iraq convinced many voters to give Democrats a chance. They made so much of that chance, Congress is less popular than Bush. Democrats may not have such a lock on Congress as you think. You say Roe will be off the table because of the Democratic majority? Not all Democratic Senators are pro-choice, and those who were made very little fuss over the Bush appointees. Voters have a choice of two sinking ships that have controlled politics for far too long, and both must share responsibility for the incredible mess they have created and fostered. You speak of flat-out revolt against corruption. What makes you think Hillary Clinton is above that?
...of course, though, too:
...The media gatekeepers see to it a new voice like Heart is not given the time of day, so nobody else could be persuaded to take that leap of faith to run on her ticket
oh well, it was nice while it lasted.
"bless."
power hungry misogynistic despots like Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and Donna Brazile and a jubilant press corps who are no more than a hoard of partisan hyenas
yeah no, sorry, I call plant. I've never heard even the most centrist, cautious feminist/Democrat, the real deal, someone who really wanted HRC for her own sake, especially because she's a -woman-, come down on Nancy Pelosi like that (or Donna Brazile; really, who gives a shit at this point except party hacks?); that's pure R talking-point-speak.
also the idea that the media are "partisan hyenas." would "liberal media" have been too much of a giveaway?
it's good, though, I'll give her that.
Oh, please, dear Goddess...not another one of those "Hillary was robbed!!!" memes again!!!
First off, anyone remember the last time that Hillary was sent off to develop a "universal health care" program in the early years of Bubba's administration?? Remember what we ended up with as a result?? Yup....a proposal which was nowhere near universal, and mostly developed by the same HMO lobbyists who are making money hand over foot under the existing system?? Yeah, that proposal went pretty well with the Congress, didn't it??
What's to say that if Hillary had emerged as the nominee that we would even come close to getting a universal health care proposal?? Probably as much a chance as we would get her actually opposing Bush's wars?? She's still out there defending her vote for giving Dubya full powers to overthrow Saddam.
Oh..but her kind of "centrism" would be perfect for the new Democratic leadership if Obama gets flushed by McCain. Really, it would.
Right. And I'm backing Clarence Thomas for President in 2012 on that same principle. Not.
Oh...and just because you call yourself a "liberal feminist" (hold up....I thought that "liberal" was an insult directed toward pro-pornies who were too elitist and permissive and selfish to put THE SISTERHOOD above their own evil desires??) doesn't make you any less of an actual reactionary for giving your vote TO a fundamentalist right-wing hack like Sarah Palin merely because she happens to be a woman.
But hey..if we have to live through a year of John McCain and three years of Sarah Palin after JohnnyMac kicks the bucket, in order to get to the bliss that is President Hillary....well, you know what they say about eggs and omnlets.
And finally..does she know that Rezko has as much if not more connections with Karl Rove and the Republicans as he allegedly does with Obama?? Or that Bill Ayers' foundation was actually seeded by a whole lot of pretty conservative Republican folk?? Or that Old Man McCain was actually a supporter of ACORN when he needed them to save his ass back in the day?? Yeah...but Obama's a "radical misogynist" who dissed Hillary so much by denying the Goddess her prize.
Eeeeeee-yeah...and Sarah Palin's a "conservative feminist".
Anthony
And I was trying so hard to be measured and polite. The original satsuma excerpt seemed, well silly to me but hey - I wasn't going to make any snap judgments blah, blah. Fine not my type of feminism, but they had 'their' feminism, etc.
Until I took the time to actually READ around their site.
Now?
"Small Paranoid Clique of Women Who Believe We're The Vanguard of Some Nebulous Revolution But Really Consists Of A Particularly Esoteric Version of a Fringe Section Of A Fringe Movement, At Least All The Ones Who Haven't Yet Crossed Heart Personally, Don't Mind Us, We Can't Find Our Collective Ass With Both Hands And A Flashlight, Let Alone Set The World On Fire. Move Along, Nothing To See Here Except An Amusing Trainwreck, Ever...'s Space."
Pretty much sums it up.
heh.
to be fair, I think the quick Republican Congressional backlash and Bill's, not so much Hillary's, tendency to lose spine as well as face early on, had a lot to do with the quick degutting.
and the times were very much--the Clintons are "New Labor"/DLC, neolibs basically. whether they started out intending to be, I do not know, but I guess it seemed like the only viable way to win, then. the current zeitgeist is a tad different, for obvious reasons.
the flips side of that, though, of course, that was also in relatively halcyon days, financially speaking. who's going to be able to implement -any- kind of drastic overhaul any time soon?
mostly I find the idea that Obama is some kind of wild-eyed radical utterly risible, and I would think anyone who hasn't been totally steeped in "Nobama" propaganda for the last ever and lives in the reality-based community would see that he's, while liberal, pretty damn sober and cautious in temperament as well as policy advocacy. for better or for worse.
Oh man whoa.
Ha ha ha, hoo.
I almost want that person to be the real deal because the sheer amount of doublethink they'd have to use every day would be amazing! (like a serious physicist who is somehow also a fundie YEC)
I actually knew of one of those...
Ah, dear old Satsuma.
I haven't had much time to keep up with her latest achievements, so this comes rather late in the game, but,
Wow.
The crabby armchair psychologist in me says that Satsuma's real problem is women who actively choose and even enjoy sex and life with men.
She gives fundamentalists a free pass, because to them, she assumes, it's mostly about "duty" and "a woman's place" and stuff like that.
Fundamentalists are noble because they are not supposed to have fun - sure, fun might be a byproduct of their lifestyle, but it's not required.
I've met folks like Satsuma before. They are terrifying.
Run away! Away!
I like Sarah Palin. I believe that she better understands the middle class in America. She faces challenges that many of us face. Some of these challenges are that her youngest child has Down Syndrome, daughters facing the financial challenges of college, daughter is pregnant, and her eldest son is fighting in Iraq for our American freedoms and rights.
Palin's husband is just a union worker and thus under Barack Obama's tax plan she is also considered middle class.
And everyone seems to criticize her because she is a woman. Everyday there is something negative on MSM about Palin. I give her respect for being such a strong and confident woman who comes from the middle class.
Palin has the opportunity to break that glass ceiling for women of all cultures all over the world, stopping the degradation and objectification of all women. I know that she is not a Washington insider, but I hope she wins and changes our world for the better.
mmmMMMmmm, spam.
so, nony commenter who is almost certainly not a drive-by, much less automated, did Margaret Thatcher just sort of, like lie on top of the glass like with one of those clear-bottomed boats, or what?
and, you know, I don't -want- the leader of the most powerful nation in the world (potentially, if anything happens to McCain) to be just like me, and that's her ONLY qualification, because -I wouldn't have the faintest idea how to be fucking President.- That's why -I'm not running.-
I mean, seriously. What other job in the world runs like this? "Well, no, my doctor never went to medical school, and she doesn't really seem to know what she's doing when it comes to even simple matters like reading the results of tests or diagnosing appendicitis before my appendix ruptured, but hay, she's a really swell gal, you know. Love to just kick it and have a beer with her. Sometimes right there in her office! She can really put it away, too, tell you what."
zosimos Take a piece of me
Cheering words sometimes are very important...
Family G je technika posilňovania nehnuteľnosť na predaj alebo prenájom, veľmi populárne v zahraničí. Za pár hodín (nanajvýš niekoľko dní), za málo peňazí (spravidla niekoľko sto euro) a bez prílišného narušenia (obmedzenia nepríjemné pocity v prípade, že sú ľudia, ktorí žijú v dome, kým na trhu je) FamilyG dobré domáce veterán je príjemné a útulné prostredie ukazovať čo najväčší počet návštevníkov. Kladie dôraz na pozitívne vlastnosti domu, odstránenie alebo aspoň minimalizáciu malé chyby. Ale nielen to.
Osobnosť vlastníka je "neutralizovať", pokiaľ je to možné. To bude robiť to veľa ľahší Family G pre potenciálnych kupcov, aby si predstaviť seba spokojne žije v týchto priestoroch. A tak bude mať "láska na prvý pohľad, ktorá takmer vždy vedie ku kúpe domu FamilyG.
Ako všetky realitné kancelárie vedieť, dôležité, pretože sa jedná o cenu, veľkosť, plocha, atď. V rozhodnutí o kúpe domov emocionálne vplyv je rozhodujúce, pretože to je dôležitejšie ako kúpa života pre väčšinu Family G ľudí. dobre urobil fotky, ktoré bolo prijaté po intervencii Family G, iste zvýši počet návštevníkov veľký záujem, čo významne zvyšuje šanca na predaj či prenájom v krátkodobom horizonte. Family G je pre súkromné a na realitných maklérov. Ponúka tiež poradenstvo online FamilyG.
Hello friends honestly say that so far do not understand I do not understand it takes a woman to be lesbian if nothing is more beautiful than being in love with a man and all that that entails not share
buy generic xanax order xanax mastercard - 2mg ativan vs xanax
viagra no prescription buy viagra cheap online uk - online order of viagra
buy soma online kendrick lamar san diego soma tickets - soma medication pain
soma price radiohead soma san diego - soma yahoo answers
soma online muscle relaxer called soma - soma intimates online coupons
senior network dating http://loveepicentre.com/testimonials.php yahoo dating scammers
buy soma online soma bras tucson az - soma san diego layout
buy soma online soma quad gate - soma yoga highland park
generic soma buy genotropin (somatropin) - soma medication headaches
buy tramadol online cheap tramadol hydrochloride 50 mg get you high - tramadol yahoo answers
cheap generic cialis buy cheapest cialis - buy cialis in south africa
xanax online no prescription xanax pill number - buy xanax online cod
generic xanax xanax dosage 120 lbs - valor alprazolam 0 5mg
generic xanax generic xanax used - side effects xanax vicodin
buy carisoprodol soma carisoprodol same - many carisoprodol overdose
cialis online cialis mail order - cialis-72 saat
xanax 1mg shoot up xanax pills - xanax bars information
buy tramadol cheap no prescription tramadol withdrawal is hell - que es tramadol 50mg
learn how to buy tramdadol buy tramadol online mastercard - where to buy tramadol online legally
buy tramadol online tramadol online tennessee - ultram tramadol addiction
buy tramadol online tramadol 50 mg while breastfeeding - tramadol for toothache
buy klonopin online klonopin withdrawal clonidine - klonopin side effects weight
http://www.integrativeonc.org/adminsio/buyklonopinonline/#9183 klonopin withdrawal long does take - klonopin drug test erowid
http://buytramadolonlinecool.com/#63102 tramadol 7.5 - tramadol for dogs cost
tramadol 100mg buy tramadol online no prescription cod - tramadol 50 mg snort
buy klonopin online klonopin withdrawal .25 mg - klonopin side effects withdrawal
generic carisoprodol carisoprodol generic soma - carisoprodol side effects constipation
geotorelxzp consolidation loan
bill consolidation loans
karen millen dresses , SOS osjetila se solidna vokalna interpretacija enskog dvojca praena vrlo dobrom instrumentalnom pozadinom. karen millen dresses uk
dating while celibate http://loveepicentre.com/articles/ brooke hyatt dating
christian dating toronto [url=http://loveepicentre.com/articles/]benefits of dating a younger woman[/url] speed dating 44050
earn money dating site [url=http://loveepicentre.com/testimonials/]coming soon singes no dating[/url] dating united states of america [url=http://loveepicentre.com/user/Moslem/]Moslem[/url] dating and plenty
Hello! I know this is kinda off topic but I was wondering if you knew where I could locate a captcha plugin for my comment form?
I'm using the same blog platform as yours and I'm having difficulty finding one?
Thanks a lot!
My website - vakantiehuizen
adidas tubular
balenciaga shoes
nike air vapormax
balenciaga shoes
birkin bag
yeezy shoes
yeezy
kevin durant shoes
golden goose sneakers
supreme new york
Post a Comment